Demolition squibs on the WTC Towers & Bldg 7!

I SEE WE HAVE A NEW 911 CONSPIRACY WACKO POSTING ON THE BOARDS.
Do you really believe this **** youre posting Marty?


Heres a painting by Hieronimus Bosch about what the inside of a 911 conspiracist's mind looks like

HOWEVER, JUST BECAUSE Marty is a lunatic, doesnt mean that he should be silenced. I vbelieve that all the 911 conspiracy loonies, merely make their own cases more crazy by having them try to present their "facts".

Let 'em rant on. It sometimes gets entertaining, if you like bad sci-fi.

Whoever started using the term "squib" is also uninformed. A squib is a specific "firecreacker" used to initiate charges where timing is NOT important (Certainly not building demolition),
Its an example of someone trying to sound informed and others picking up the malaprop.

I agree, Marty does pose like an internet conspiracy cellar dweller.

He's probably just the latest graduate from Glenn Beck University.

Problem with John Feal..



Feal's internet blurb (Google) states that he has a background in controlled demolition ..so what the hell was he doin' at the WTC on 911!

Right you are.... and It's particularly significant when it comes to WTC7, which wasn't even hit by a plane. It's really pretty worthless to bother with science in this forum though, these guys don't seem interested in solutions or getting to the bottom of anything, it seems to be more about agitation, distraction and fabrication.

Though the possible composition and placement of the explosives can be endlessly debated, but the fact that they were indeed composed and placed cannot....

The conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur have been known for centuries - "The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration."....
[center][/center]
....and the progressive collapse of the building (starting with column 79 on the left)....
[center][/center]
....that essentially happens all at once....
[center][/center]
....is clearly inconsistent with what we empirically know of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failures involving a number of related structural components).

It's a matter of empirical fact that, even if a giant laser beam were to suddenly vaporize all but the North Face of the building, resulting in the remaining exterior columns immediately beginning to buckle all at once, free fall still would not occur.

The strength of buckled columns, whether one or a thousand, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) won't just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they'll go from 100% to 0% while they buckle and that takes time.

The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive structural failure), whether caused by heat....
[center][/center]
[center]Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif[/center]

....or by overloading....
[center][/center]
[center]Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif[/center]

....absolutely cannot create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen in the video....
[center][/center]
It's a physical impossibility for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter columns) to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself at gravitational acceleration (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled below) for any period of time....
[center][/center]
....and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that can ever give rise to the conditions required (below) for free fall to have occurred at any point during it's descent....
[center][/center]
The scenario (below) is an absolute physical impossibility....
[center][/center]
There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven collapse of a steel frame skyscraper like this where one could say....

[center]"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns and structural components that were supporting the building just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field) will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing progressive structural failure (below right)"....[/center]
[center][/center]
Not only is it improbable, it's impossible that the lower asymmetrically damaged part of the building could have naturally progressively collapsed in a way that resulted in the upper part of the building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of greatest resistance (below right), and that driven on solely by gravity, it actually continued to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected....
[center][/center]
For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration it cannot have been using any of it's potential energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time....
[center][/center]
[center]Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif[/center]

Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration.

For the 2.25 seconds that the building iliterally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known to have existed inside the building as an element or normal function of it's infrastructure.

For a load supported by a column to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized, etc.

Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have quickly knocked out all support....
[center][/center]
[center]Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif[/center]

....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage (another form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have quickly pulled out the support....
[center][/center]
[center]Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif][/center]

....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly blown out all support....

[center][/center]
[center]Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif[/center]

....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....
[center][/center]
[center]Control on the right, details....
http://picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1a...8f520c5ad7e.gif[/center]

....and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some time before the event, and unless someone can show how the other force that must be introduced either during or just before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really leaves only one possible explanation for the building's behaviour.

Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported inside the building some time before the event, it had to be brought in.

The explosion model (below) is the only one....
[center][/center]

....that can realistically match and empirically be expected to create the conditions (below) that we know must have existed....
[center][/center]

....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building (below) during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....
[center][/center]

The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) confirmed observation of a significant period of gravitational acceleration....
[center][/center]
....means an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....

[center][/center]

The building was brought down by explosives.

The facts that always seem to make farmerman the "scientist" flee like his tail is on fire.

Perhaps you can explain how the "scientists" at NIST pretended that WTC7 didn't fall at free fall speed.

Or why NIST would categorically deny molten steel at WTC, especially when you yourself know it existed.

It seems that you owe Marty an apology as you seem to be the lunatic.

Are you now prepared to eat your words, Edgar?

Where oh where has farmerman gone, oh where oh where can he be?

You too, Edgar!!

lovely cartoon , totally meaningless. Ought to be scarfed up by the conspiracy nutters, like JTT and Glenn.
e had actual film of the buildings collapsing so the resort to these cartoons is totally unnecessary. Was it "free fall" was no shear force involved.

The mere act of setting up such a preposterous scenario is like hiding D Day.

Many of you folks are actually in need of help to be able to sense reality.

Those pictures illustrate what you have always avoided, farmerman the scientist, the science. Even here all you have is a jumble of disconnected ramblings.

We have actual film/video of the buildings being blown up.

We have the NIST cartoon/computer simulation that doesn't match reality at all. When lies, bad science doesn't match reality, we still have farmerman the scientist lamely attempting to divert from reality, from actual science.

Actual video of WTC 7 destruction undermines NIST computer simulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM



Yes, it was, and you know this so why are you putting forward another lie. WTC7 was in free fall for the first 2.25 seconds, 105 feet, 8 storeys. You already know this or you should know this. Either way, it illustrates that you are lying, causing unnecessary distractions, which is lying.

This isn't what scientists do, farmerman. You know that too so why are you continuing with your lies.




Double speak, the mark of farmerman the scientist. The Uof A Fairbanks WTC7 forensic study says that the chance of NIST's "study" being accurate is ZERO.

Why don't you address all of the many NIST lies on WTC construction/engineering drawings, farmerman the "scientist"?

Why don't you address the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel?

Why don't you address the bald faced lies of John Gross denying the the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel when he saw and touched it himself, when he knew of the FEMA Appendix C report, when he knew of the RJLee Group report, when he knew of the USGS report?

Why don't you address the US nanothermite and the by products of those nanothermite explosions found in WTC dust, in huge volumes?

Why are you continuing with your diversions, which are really just lies?

The three towers didn't collapse, farmerman the "scientist" and you know this. They were blown up. All the science, all the evidence says so.

Therefore you are lying. Which is also so readily apparent.

Free fall only happens with controlled demolitions. WTC7 was free fall.

Accelerating collapses, with no jolts means the twin towers were blown up.

Have you ever heard of Issac Newton?

There simply is no other possible scenario. Nanothermite, molten/vaporized WTC steel, the seismic record, ... all say so.

Therefore you are lying. Which is also so readily apparent.

you need help, my license does not include th practice of psychiatry. Go find someone who cares about your obsessions.

Now you deny that weve got photos and film of the buildings toppling.
Also, you have absolutely no training nor experience in the use of def. and/or det.
Listening to what you have to say (Because , besides being insane) you are soo fuckin gullible, would be like listening to a lecture about polypeptide linkage from a chipmunk.

Ironic, isn't it, the real conspiracy nutters are the folks like you, farmerman, folks who can't provide a shred of evidence for the totally wacky conspiracy theory you all pretend to believe in, the US government official conspiracy theory.

Why haven't you ever provided any evidence for the nutty conspiracy theory you pretend to believe in, farmerman?

When people like you pretend to believe in such transparent lies, when these lies have been used to facilitate the murders of millions, what does that make people like you, farmerman?

This makes you look very stupid since you were among those who got their asses kicked in the Physics of 9/11 thread. But do continue. I never tire of watching you get more stupid as time goes by.

Listen to the science and the evidence from, he suggests, a "licensed" science guy of some sort.

Could you point me to the sentence of any of your post where you did/do science, farmerman?

What a gigantic joke you are!

As Glennn says, keep it up, farmerman.

Another farmerman bald faced lie. And the deeply immoral thing is he knows full well he is lying.

Point out where I said that there were no photos or films of the building being blown up.

Lying about me and what I have said and about the three towers, which he knows were blown up.

How do we know that farmerman knows he is lying? Because he knows the towers were blown up. All the science, which, AGAIN, I must point out, describes no other possible scenario except the controlled demolition of WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

A "scientist" who knows he is lying, knows he is actively engaged in the cover up of the murders of millions. This is an evil on a Mengeleian scale.